Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important issue. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, on this motion. Others, particularly Labour Party members, have raised questions about why the issue should be raised at this time. Our party has raised the issue consistently in recognition of the very serious numbers of people who find themselves in mortgage arrears and under enormous pressure on a daily basis because they are in debt to financial institutions. The motion should not be a surprise to anybody and it should not be construed as somehow tied up with the by-election that is taking place. If someone in the Labour Party feels a discussion in the House tonight will improve or worsen the chances of a candidate, he or she will have a bigger surprise on seeing the level of support for the Labour Party tomorrow. That is an issue for another day.

It would be populist to come in here to have a go at the banks and blame financial institutions for the entirety of the crisis in which we find ourselves. I am not going to do that. I am aware, as are others, that there have been significant personnel changes at board and senior management level in the banks. There is a group of people within the financial institutions now who are committed to finding a resolution to the problem. Notwithstanding that, there is considerable inertia about resolving the crisis. That is not surprising given the fiduciary duties of executives and board members, whose responsibility is to get the greatest return for shareholders. The taxpayer is the only shareholder in one bank and the part-owner of another. In one of the other institutions, the State has a considerable amount of share capital. The best outcome from a shareholder's perspective will not always accord with the interests and needs of borrowers who are under significant pressure. It is for that reason that one must take responsibility for resolving each individual case away from the financial institution. If a bank has a veto, it will have to exercise it in almost all circumstances in order to meet its fiduciary obligations in company law.

Deputy Michael McGrath's proposal formed part of a previous Fianna Fáil Bill. It seeks to create an independent office to act on the basis of a uniform set of guidelines to find a resolution and act as an honest broker to ensure banks get the best return possible while borrowers end up with a reasonable level of living expenses from their income. The Taoiseach denied the existence of guidelines today and said that no spouse would have to leave employment where a family's child care costs were greater than that person's income. While I welcome his clarification, I wonder what will be the next level of conditions to suck the lives out of people whom we need to encourage to return to the market. The economy is in a perilous state. It is completely hamstrung because of built-up debt. People have no concept of what is available to them at the end of a week or a month to spend on a reasonable lifestyle.

We have heard the criteria put forward over the weekend as to whether someone should be entitled to a Sky package or to retain a second car. That frightens people. They recognise that if guidelines such as this emerge, the banks will push them to the nth degree. Rather than to trying to take the burden off the shoulders of distressed borrowers, it seems we are to place a noose around their necks for the next 15 to 20 years. That must damage confidence in the economy. On occasion, Ministers talk up the economy - perhaps to a much greater extent than is merited - as part of their effort to create an environment of confidence. Do they really think that if they place that noose around the necks of so many borrowers, it will do anything for confidence or to generate growth? We must take this seriously.

I am not so sure whether it will take another wave of evictions or another wave of draconian actions by the financial institutions for the Government to accept it got it wrong from the start. The Government will not get hullabaloo from this side of the House if it slightly alters its course and accepts there is a better way, an independent way and one that will benefit the individuals who have the output from it and the economy, which will have the benefit of people with a positive outlook, money to spend in the domestic economy and who will go to work more positively and deliver better for all concerned.

I used the term noose around the neck without making any direct implications. Sadly, hardly a constituency in the country has not seen an increase in suicide. It is not always the case that it is associated with debt issues. There are other contributing factors in some cases but a considerable number of people in recent months, and certainly in the past two years, have taken their own lives because of the financial pressure they are under. While I accept the behaviour of the financial institutions has changed dramatically from what it used to be years ago in terms of the appropriate level of contact through telephone calls and letters, that has helped but has not lifted the burden. People under financial pressure had high hopes when the Government said it would address the issue but the hope has abated. People see the Government has left control in the hands of the financial institutions for the reasons I said. They are not in a position to look favourably on proposals from individual borrowers.

Mental health is one of the more serious issues we must deal with but we are not addressing it. We are spending a lot of time dealing with road safety, which is fantastic and which has reaped benefits and rewards. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, is publishing a strategy and it will save lives but the approach in respect of the resolution of the mortgage debt issue continues to be a charter for an increase in suicide by people who find themselves with no way out. It reflects badly on all of us in the House. We should put aside political differences and examine the issue from a vantage point. In addressing it, we should try to find a solution that gives hope to people who, at the moment, have none and see no way out. They see themselves looking into a dark tunnel. If there is anything the Minister of State can do, it would be greatly appreciated by the families of people for whom, sadly, any changes will be too late. If the actions the borrowers have taken in taking their own lives can lead to a change in policy from the Government, perhaps the loss of their lives will not have been in vain.

In conclusion, it is right and fitting that the Government puts in place the appropriate level of income for families to allow them to live normal lives. People should be able to have a holiday, retain a family pet and where two cars are a necessity, they should be allowed to retain them. If we continue along the way proposed by the Government, a serious situation will develop.

See this speech in context